Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
---- In-universe categories Brain A subcat to Category:Anatomy with all the anatomical parts of the brain as well as things like neurotransmitters etc. There is a list on the brain page to start this category. :I like the idea, but is that the best name for it? How about "Nervous system"? --LauraCC (talk) 15:56, December 16, 2016 (UTC) ::"Brain anatomy" seems like the obvious term for what you seem to want to be doing. I too think that "brain" is a bit too vague: it seems like the proposed category would be intended for brain components, but if it's just called "brain" people might not get that and put things like "lobotomy", "cranial implant" or "aneurysm" in it. Otherwise, Support. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:17, December 18, 2016 (UTC) :I suppose if there are enough that fall into such a category, we could add "neurological conditions" as well. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, December 22, 2016 (UTC) :And a neurotransmitter isn't anatomy, it's a chemical. So that wouldn't go in a "brain anatomy" category. --LauraCC (talk) 20:52, April 10, 2017 (UTC) Subspace communication To replace Template:Subspace, unless it could be edited into "technology" and "types of communications" sections. --LauraCC (talk) 19:39, February 1, 2017 (UTC) category=Subspace category=communications technology --LauraCC (talk) 19:46, February 1, 2017 (UTC) I've left off sortkeying some of the ones in category "subspace" that I recognize as communication related until the category idea is rejected or accepted. --LauraCC (talk) 17:19, February 2, 2017 (UTC) :I'm not exactly clear on why it needs replaced, unless we're on a mission to eliminate all of these navigational-type templates. I wouldn't be opposed to a category of "Subspace communications" for these articles as a sub-cat of "Communications technology", but I don't really know that it's necessary. I'd like to hear some other opinions. -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:40, February 16, 2017 (UTC) Those that are more like a diagram/table and less like a long list, such as Template:EnterpriseHelmsmen are fine. My problem with the subspace communications one is that it's not organized like that. It's just an alphabetical list. --LauraCC (talk) 20:46, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :That's exactly what it is, an alphabetical list linking articles in two distinct categories: "Subspace" and "Communications technology". It *has* grown longer over time from when it was first implemented, though, so it *may* be time to retire it in favor of another approach. Anyone else? -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:14, February 16, 2017 (UTC) ::Support. - 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC) Biochemical compounds category=Biology category=Chemical compounds category=Biology category=poisonous substances category=Physiology category=Chemical compounds For those "Chemical compounds" secreted naturally by biological lifeforms rather than produced. Subcat of "Chemical compounds". Also, there's probably enough enzymes/enzyme-related pages to have an "enzymes" category. --LauraCC (talk) 17:43, February 9, 2017 (UTC) That is, there probably will be when all those red links at "enzyme" are made into pages. --LauraCC (talk) 20:08, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :This one probably isn't a bad idea. And some of these may be miscategorized to begin with; I'm not sure, from a biochemical standpoint, what the difference is between categorizing one under "Biology" and another under "Physiology". And the ones under "Poisonous substances" are still chemical compounds, so they should also be under the "Chemical compounds" category as well, if they're not already. -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:18, February 16, 2017 (UTC) ::Support if all of these can be categorized under physiology; if not, oppose, as this would be a better off as a nav template then. - 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC) What about "enzymes"? --LauraCC (talk) 21:12, February 23, 2017 (UTC) Aside from herbicide, I don't see anything which wouldn't fall under physiology. --LauraCC (talk) 20:00, February 28, 2017 (UTC) It appears to be the only one which is not naturally produced by an organism. --LauraCC (talk) 20:54, April 10, 2017 (UTC) Production POV categories E3 award winners and nominees Apparently Star Trek (video game) won some E3 awards (aka "Game Critics Awards") http://www.digitalextremes.com/news/2011/08/star-trek-wins-big-e3-2011, and Star Trek: Bridge Crew was nominated recently for best vr game. http://uploadvr.com/best-vr-games-awards-e3-2016/ I'm still unsure which of the two is the proper name for the award, hence my hesitation to add it to the awards page. --LauraCC (talk) 17:23, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Also, would the expo itself get its own page (like some magazines have, such as Prosthetics, which isn't an exclusively Trek publication) or a section on a general expo page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Entertainment_Expo --LauraCC (talk) 17:35, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Feel free to wait to answer my second post about a page for the expo until this discussion is moved to a category talk page (if it ever is). --LauraCC (talk) 21:38, January 24, 2017 (UTC) Puppeteers A subcat of "Category:Performers"(?) for all who operated puppets on a Star Trek production. * Alison Elbl * Bob Baker * Heide Pendergast * Dan Curry ( transporter creatures) * Don Dow (strangled Ceti Alpha worm on ) * John Fifer * Kevin D. Carlson * Alan McFarland * David Sosalla (Klingon monster dog on – official credit:"Creature Supervisor") * David Stipes * Paul Elliot * J.J. Abrams (tribble on ) * Tony Hudson (whales in IV – official credit:"Whale Operators/Puppeteers") * Mark Miller (whales in IV – official credit:"Whale Operators/Puppeteers") --LauraCC (talk) 16:57, January 12, 2017 (UTC) We have other options also: 1) include this list in a background note @ the in-universe article Puppeteer (which only has one reference - I've already added a short note saying the shows used puppeteers to operate small moving creatures) 2) create a real-world page (a la Stand-in) for this role (my preference if a category isn't made) --LauraCC (talk) 17:32, January 18, 2017 (UTC) I just wonder how the real-world article and the in-universe one would be disambiguated? "(Real world)"? "(Production)"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:00, January 18, 2017 (UTC) I previously disambiguated United States Postal Service in universe from United States Postal Service (real world) that way, but I don't particularly like that approach either. --LauraCC (talk) 19:20, January 19, 2017 (UTC) :There is actually no reason not to have both a cat unto its own and a real world article for puppeteer (I added Don Dow and David Sosalla and, where applicable, some official movie credits to your list); the latter then serves as the "portal page" for the cat, just like the stand-in example you mentioned. What I'm less sure about however, is the subbing under "performers" of the new cat (which btw I Support). I'm wondering if subbing under "Special and Visual effects staff" isn't the more applicable one, since the items these people puppeteer are in essence special effects, and it are they that are "performing", not their operators (and if memory serves that dichotomy is adhered to in motion picture credits; puppeteers, when credited, are not listed under cast); in this respect they do not differ from motion control riggers who are putting the physical studio starship models though their paces... As to the disamb, I'm in agreement that "real world" is a bit awkward looking, but for the Postal Service (as a collectible company, it precludes merging with the in-universe article as a background section, which I would otherwise have preferred), it is correct in its description and in concordance with how the production POV template is worded, so I can live with it. If a puppeteer page is created the disamb "Production" has my preference to indicate that these real world people actually worked on Star Trek live-action productions, as opposed to the Postal Service...Sennim (talk) 07:38, March 17, 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the additions. --LauraCC (talk) 20:55, April 10, 2017 (UTC) Maintenance categories Anthology covers Now that we have Category:Anthologies, it seems logical to have their covers be in "Category: Memory Alpha images (anthology covers)" rather than "novel covers". --LauraCC (talk) 20:05, February 18, 2017 (UTC) :I'm not seeing why we need this, since it doesn't really add anything to that tree branch. Omnibus covers are "replacing" other novel covers, but these novels were always meant to only have "one" cover. - 21:55, February 18, 2017 (UTC) Not anthologies of previously published entire books, but short story collection covers, like the Strange New Worlds book covers. --LauraCC (talk) 17:12, February 21, 2017 (UTC) Special features I'd like to propose a Category:Special features, subbed under Category:Specials and on par with Category:Documentaries for the following reasons: *An increasing number of MA Editors find it worthwhile to include separate entries for these kind of productions, which I, btw, find entirely justified (especially produced with its own production staff in the vast majority of cases, it is a bit odd that a twenty minute (commercial) special like The Star Trek Logs: An MTV Big Picture Special Edition warrants its own entry, whereas something like the in-depth In Conversation: Rick Berman & Brannon Braga or The Trek Not Taken should not under its own category.) *Inclusion of the category would differentiate between those documentaries produced as an independent, stand-alone, production {see the definition currently employed on its portal page), contrary to those especially produced for a home media format. Currently, most of them are subbed under the in my opinion incorrect cat "Documentaries" *These home media format special features increasingly receive their own individual entries on IMDB, which has become a premier source of tracking down the lesser know Star Trek documentaries. As these specials are not seldomly listed without the source publication, the misconception may arise that these are "stand-alone" productions. *It chimes perfectly with the already existing image categories Category:Memory Alpha images (documentaries) and Category:Memory Alpha images (special features). *When introduced, a nav bar akin to the ones employed for book, or home media formats series, can be employed for the individual special feature articles, employing their respective home media format page as the "portal". *Being a MA editor myself, I find it increasingly difficult to keep track of remembering where I saw/heard what on which special, especially with the proliferation of such productions resulting from the remastered releases...Having something like the proposed category, might at the very least alleviate some of that stress... My two cents..--Sennim (talk) 15:53, March 7, 2017 (UTC) :You've certainly given this a lot of thought...:)--LauraCC (talk) 16:13, March 8, 2017 (UTC) ::Support, provided that this category is in Documentaries, as these special features are still a documentary, of a different sort when compared to the stand alone versions, but still falling under the broader definition that readers are likely to use, unless I've missed one that couldn't be considered a documentary in any respect. - 03:23, March 9, 2017 (UTC) :Question: would titled gag reels fall under this proposed category? I don't think those are documentaries per se. --LauraCC (talk) 15:24, March 9, 2017 (UTC) I'm impartial to the new cat being either listed alongside or subbed under "Documentaries", both options work for me...As to the gag reels, you could also consider them this way, as a special kind of behind-the-scenes registration...--Sennim (talk) 10:18, March 10, 2017 (UTC)